AMID LOOMING CHARTER CHANGE DEBATES
SC rule on joint Congress vote sought
“Malacanang dogs on the loose…” -BK
By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
10/09/2008
MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) at voting on Charter change should not be held hostage by the “tyranny” of the Senate, a neophyte lawmaker at the House of Representatives has filed a petition seeking to uphold the constitutionality of joint voting by both Houses of Congress.
In a press conference Thursday, Bohol Representative Adam Relson Jala said that he filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and/or mandamus on September 26, asking the high court to rule as constitutional and valid the joint voting by both Houses of Congress “in adopting resolutions, proposing amendments to, or revisions of the Constitution.”
In his 34-page petition, Jala also asked the high tribunal to declare as unconstitutional Rule 20 Section 140 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that was adopted on Nov. 20, 2007.
Rule 20 mandates that proposals to amend or revise the Constitution “shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”
“This rule leads to the inescapable interpretation that adoption of such proposals must be by separate voting. … In my humble legal opinion, the separate voting interpretation is an unconstitutional procedure. The Constitution simply requires joint voting,” the lawmaker told reporters.
Separate voting will subject any move to amend the Constitution to the tyranny of some senators, he said.
“If we follow the separate voting, let us hypothetically assume that the House unanimously adopts the proposal and now 16 senators adopt the proposal but 7 senators will not adopt the proposal. That will now frustrate the proposal which could have been submitted to the judgment of the people. The people could have ratified it, could have rejected it, or could have exercised their constituent power that is inherent to them. This is like a tyranny of seven senators.
“If you look at it, a Constitution that cannot be changed is equal to tyrannical rule. Because the very essence of sovereignty and democracy is the power to adopt and alter the Constitution,” Jala said
Jala filed the petition amid looming debates on Charter change.
Speaker Prospero Nograles, author of one of the resolutions, had said that House members have reached a “convergence” on Charter change and that the only contention was on the voting in a constituent assembly — whether separately or jointly.
In a separate news conference earlier on Thursday, Majority Floor Leader Arthur Defensor said that there should first be a “justiciable controversy” before the high tribunal could decide on the issue.
Defensor said the presence of resolutions calling for Charter change was not enough to file a case in the Supreme Court.
But the lawmaker added the resolutions would serve as “trigger mechanisms” to start the process of deliberation at the committee level leading up to plenary debates.
“The House must deliberate on it, the House must have a very clear direction on how to amend the Constitution before we can find a justiciable controversy. Probably, it could happen when the House votes on second reading somebody will rush to the Supreme Court and say ‘mali kayo [you are wrong].’ Ngayon, hindi pa pwede [That is no longer possible now],” Defensor said.
Asked to react on this, Jala said there was already precedence that would show that the issue was “ripe for adjudication,” citing the November 2003 case of Francisco, Jr. against the House of Representatives, where the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus challenging the constitutionality of the rules of procedure in impeachment proceedings of the House.